Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have serious concerns about what is before us. As has been said, effectively we have two large sections of amendments to the Bill that have nothing to do with its main substance. Essentially, it is about the extension of the boundaries of Cork city and local authority arrangements for Galway. Up to 128 amendments have been proposed, some of which are more detailed about the arrangements for Cork and the areas that will become part of the city which up to now have been part of the county. That is fair enough. However, in themselves they are quite detailed. I would certainly like to have the opportunity to discuss them with my Cork colleagues before expressing a view on them. I have the added difficulty that the Labour Party does not have any Member on the housing committee, meaning that we will not have an opportunity to vote on the amendments. While we can attend, we cannot vote.

I understand the amendments were brought forward because we needed more detail. On Second Stage we all said we wanted to know more about the arrangements for the particular areas in Cork, but I am concerned about the other amendments. I support the holding of a plebiscite on directly elected mayors. I also support the concept of directly elected mayors. In the limited time we have had to read what is before us, I thought I would get some idea from amendments Nos. 105 and 106 of the powers and functions directly elected mayors would have, as well as of their relationship with the chief executives of the local authorities.

However, the regulations only concern how to hold the plebiscite, including people's right to vote and the normal arrangements that are put in place for any election. As far as I can see, nothing tells us exactly what the powers will be. Surely that is crucial. In my understanding, the whole point of having a directly elected mayor is to reorganise the relative powers between the executive and the elected members, but all I can see is amendment No. 109, which reads:

The Minister shall, in respect of each administrative area in respect of which a plebiscite is held in accordance with this Part and not later than 2 years from the day appointed under subsection (2) of section 33, prepare and submit to both Houses of the Oireachtas either--(a) a report specifying proposals for the enactment of a law providing for a directly elected mayor for such administrative area, or

(b) a report specifying the reasons for his or her not preparing and submitting a report under paragraph (a).”.

I assume the latter provision is because, since we cannot predict the result of a plebiscite, a mayor may not necessarily be appointed. It seems that the Minister will make all of the decisions. There is to be consultation and so on, but I am not sure that we will be doing our job as Members of the House if we just let this pass through without any understanding of what the mayor's powers or role will be.

The process is even more complicated in counties, albeit not so much in Cork, which will just entail the city. In Limerick, Waterford and Galway, the people who will be taking part in a plebiscite will be from the administrative areas of the council of the city and county of Limerick, the council of the city and county of Waterford and, because those authorities have not been brought together yet, the council of the city of Galway and the council of the county of Galway. There will be just one directly elected mayor for large county areas and cities in those counties. That raises issues. I expressed my concern on Second Stage that there could be a mayor from, for example, the back end of the county in Limerick representing the city. I have nothing against the back end of the county, but mayors from other places normally represent large municipal areas, which will not be the case in this context. As such, we have every right to have concerns about the powers and role of the directly elected mayor.

The next part relates to places where urban areas extend into other counties. Limerick is included in this. Obviously, I know more about Limerick than I do about the other areas. I would like to know more about how this will work. In Limerick, for example, there are two housing estates very close to where I live, but they are just over the other side of the river in County Clare. I assume that that area is the main part that will be transferred to Limerick. However, they are in County Clare currently and have been part of local area plans that are linked to Clare villages close by. This was an issue at the time of the original proposals to extend the boundary, which were strongly resisted by people in County Clare but supported by some of those living in the housing estates immediately adjacent to the city because they had mostly come from the city. The interaction between such areas and the parts of the counties that are adjacent to them pose difficult questions. Many issues need to be teased out in this regard.

While I have many concerns about the Bill, the one matter I do not have a problem with is amending the error in the title of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, but that is hardly the most significant element of the Bill.

As Deputy Ó Laoghaire stated, I am not sure how appropriate it is that we should be sending to Committee Stage a Bill that substantially differs from the Bill that we debated on Second Stage and to which we had given some thought. We now have little time to give to the two sections that have been attached to it. There has been much debate in recent years about the issue of directly elected mayors and much support for it. Ironically, a great deal of that support has been in the Dublin area, which is not included in this legislation and has been postponed to a later date. Given that there is a question of democratic representation at local level anyway, this significant issue deserves much more scrutiny than it will get on Committee Stage tomorrow if we use this mismatched approach to deal with what is almost a new Bill.

The Minister of State has been asked to give a briefing, which I hope will extend beyond the members of the committee to anyone who wants to attend. I would have preferred more time. Does it have to go to the committee tomorrow? Can we not take longer? We have very little time to examine it.

See this speech in context